It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I am omitting the term "Atheism" entirely from my vocabulary. The only reason I ever used it was for simplicity, not because I identified as one. However, since a wide range of people, including religious followers, agnostics, and atheists, have muddled and conflicted the definition of what Atheism is, I have concluded that it is probably much easier to just omit it entirely. For those who don't have a belief in God based on a lack of sufficient empirical, testable, observable evidence, we don't need such a label.
In fact, in my opinion, such a label is actually absurd. While there are other people who might like to identify as Atheists, that is their choice; but it is still absurd nonetheless, that is if we are talking about mere lack or absence of belief. It is ludicrous to identify ourselves by what we don't do. I don't practice Tai Chi either, but I don't identify as someone who doesn't practice Tai Chi. I am not an astronaut either, but I don't identify as a non-astronaut. I don't believe in Reincarnation, but I don't identify as a non-reincarnation believer. I don't believe in God, but I don't identify as an Atheist. I don't believe in a non-god, but I don't identify as a theist, pantheist, or otherwise. I don't believe what agnostics claim either, but I don't identify as a non-agnostic.
I am a "none," I am a "nothing."
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
Frankly I never used the term that much at all in real life. When we go to the market we do not recognize a beautiful woman atheist. We just notice a woman. Theist for that matter as well. The only place I've used either term on a consistent basis was on the internet, debate sites specifically. It is a simple way of quick identification but like you said, it like all labels gets muddled. In the end, I agree, don't need that label. To be honest though, I'm not sure I'd correct someone repeatedly during a debate if the term itself started becoming the issue instead of the original topic of debate.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
It's not that simple ricky. I would love to believe as I once did. I mean just believe in god, look at creation and know god did it. That a benevolent super being cares enough to not only offer eternal life, but eternal bliss and contentment as well? Yeah, who wouldn't wish that? Believing something just happens, it's not a choice. And if it doesn't happen, it doesn't. You yourself didn't say you were convinced their had to be a creator, you just believed it as you observed life around you. It wasn't a conscious decision on your part. At least you don't tell it that way. You tell it as though you just believed and always have. Well that's fine but the reality is there are people who never have, not by choice, they just don't believe. There are those that did believe but as they lived life their faith left. That too isn't a choice, it just happens one realizes they do not believe as they once did. And there are those who didn't believe but now do, all circumstances have one fact in common, their belief or unbelief arises by happenstance, not choice.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
"Atheist", "theist", "agnostic"... Who cares? We are talking about an ancient fantasy book. How about we use similar terms to characterize people's opinion of Sauron, or Qui-Gon Jinn?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
If you are suggesting that I myself am claiming to deny the existence of a deity then please can you highlight exactly where I said that as I can't find myself having written that anywhere. This thread states very clearly what it is and it has nothing to do with claims about the denial of the existence of any god or deity.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
That's not what this thread is about. Why should there be a label for people who do not accept religious faiths? What's the point? I thought maybe if you understood that faith doesn't come by choice but rather more like a moment of epiphany, it comes over you one way or another. Once you understand that I would think it would reduce the need to label people based on what they don't believe. When we label non belief we cast unnecessary aspersions. I believe ZeusAres42 was making this point with this thread. Nothing to do about anyone's specific beliefs or not believing per say.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
When I see the astronomical improbabilities of all of the fundamental forces in our universe having values that will allow for a universe, not just for life, I can't help but think that it is more probable than not that such a universe is the product of a mind than random chance. When I see the complexity of even the simplest life form and look at its chromosomal structure - it certainly looks like code to me, and code needs someone to write it. People like Cricket, who co discovered DNA have admitted the complexity of even the simplest forms of life are beyond scientific explanations, yet atheists believe that non-life created life. Yet, they can't provide a single example of this happening. They can't create life, even using their minds, to do so. Yet, they think it is more likely life came from non-life, even though it can't be explained or replicated even with intentional intellect behind it.
Science suggests that the universe had a beginning. That at some point the universe made up 0 space. How much stuff can you fit into 0 space. According to many atheists, you can fit entire universes in 0 space. This to me, seems worse than appealing to magic. At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, he starts with a hat. I've said this before, but I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I also suggest that you examine the lexical structure of your last sentence. Atheism is lack of a particular belief. Your sentence parses as "I do not have enough faith to not have faith".
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
It is also a choice to neither reject or accept something. To neither affirm a positive or a negative. To neither confirm or deny, to remain neutral, with old judgement, be indifferent, etc.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
What those consequences are, however, is less obvious than you claim it is. Imagine this: the Bible is a product by the God of Logic who wants to test his creations. Will they be duped by an old fantasy story? Oops looks like many of them were... Oh well, the design was flawed, will do better next time. These duped ones though? To the discard pile with them.
Have you considered this possibility? Or did you just accept the story based on one book and a few rural preachers and closed your mind for any alternative?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I am sorry, but you did not address anything I said in my comment. Please reply to the comment's content.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
@MayCaesar I did reply to your comment...no need to apologize.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
2. Perhaps my choice of words were off. My failure to articulate properly. It's not anyone's fault they do not see evidence of a creator in the natural. Especially any specific creator.
3. "Doubting" is an adjective and requires no act of volition. 'Doubt' and 'faith' are both nouns. Neither require an act of volition but can be used as a basis to accept or reject. Hence my prior articulation admission.
4. Fine. But when I read your testimony you specifically mentioned that before you read the bible, as a young boy you just believed in a creator when you observed nature. Now you may have heard adults talking and that gave you a fledgling of some idea what a creator was, but the instant belief hit you, you didn't have anymore of a 'conscious' decision based on scriptures then you would've if you became infatuated with someone at that very instant across the street. It just over comes a person or it don't.
5. The exact point when you believed, when was that? What you described here is what I'm talking about. Your young mind is processing things you've heard with things you see, but at what juncture does faith have hold? I submit that faith occurred before you realized it. What you're talking about is when your epiphany that you suddenly realized you have overwhelming faith. Then you naturally turned to the source in your life you believed was about this creator, the bible. Your action to read and accept the bible is your choice, but your faith was already there before you read the first chapter. I'll take one step further, your faith that overtook you codifies the scriptures in your mind; instead of the verses reinforcing faith.
6. So did I. Like I said, I did not want to become an apostate. But once doubt entered I had only two paths to choose from, continue to go thru mental gymnastics trying to convince myself I still believed, or to stop deluding myself and just admit to myself I no longer had the faith it takes to believe. I chose the latter. This is important for you to understand; I did not choose to stop believing, my choice was to stop pretending I still did.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
transitive verb as per--Merriam Webster
-- Faith that saves the soul from Hell is a noun which is synonymous with belief or trust.
-- Faith that produces fruits of good works subsequent salvation is a verb.
Doubting is a verb that culminates in rejection of truth concerning our Creator and you will be held culpable for this act of defiance and rejection...you are "without excuse" (Romans 1:20).
You said: 4. Fine. But when I read your testimony you specifically mentioned that before you read the bible, as a young boy you just believed in a creator when you observed nature. Now you may have heard adults talking and that gave you a fledgling of some idea what a creator was, but the instant belief hit you, you didn't have anymore of a 'conscious' decision based on scriptures then you would've if you became infatuated with someone at that very instant across the street. It just over comes a person or it don't.
Response: Yes, as a child it was apparent to me that what I observed in the night sky was created; hence, a Creator.
Belief in a Creator is basically logic and commonsense...anyone who denies our Creator deceives themselves with intent.
You said: 5. The exact point when you believed, when was that? What you described here is what I'm talking about. Your young mind is processing things you've heard with things you see, but at what juncture does faith have hold? I submit that faith occurred before you realized it. What you're talking about is when your epiphany that you suddenly realized you have overwhelming faith. Then you naturally turned to the source in your life you believed was about this creator, the bible. Your action to read and accept the bible is your choice, but your faith was already there before you read the first chapter. I'll take one step further, your faith that overtook you codifies the scriptures in your mind; instead of the verses reinforcing faith.
Response: I've "believed" that a Creator existed from my earliest childhood memories. My young mind perceived the unfathomable night sky, the supernatural world around me and came to a logical conclusion, even in my immaturity, that these things required a "Maker."
My transition from simple belief into faith manifest during my first thorough read of the Scriptures...the Scriptures are the source of life for humanity as they introduce our Creator and His eschatological purposes for this life constrained by Time and physics.
Yes, I "chose" to engage the Scriptures in search of answers. I believed what I read and I was rewarded with faith and eternal life in Jesus. The Scriptures are the source of my faith as they introduced me to my Messiah who died for me that I could live eternally in Him.
You said: 6. So did I. Like I said, I did not want to become an apostate. But once doubt entered I had only two paths to choose from, continue to go thru mental gymnastics trying to convince myself I still believed, or to stop deluding myself and just admit to myself I no longer had the faith it takes to believe. I chose the latter. This is important for you to understand; I did not choose to stop believing, my choice was to stop pretending I still did.
Response: Obviously, you never truly wanted to believe but entertained the possibility...yet you knew and know that a Creator exists but His righteousness and holiness are an impedance to your love of the flesh and your desires to satiate that flesh with conduct that is contrary to our Holy Creator; therefore, you exist in pity and self-righteousness and a facade of intellectualism and arrogance thinking yourself too "smart" to believe in a "sky daddy"...there are billions just like you...who will die in Hell in stubbornness and "that's just the way it is."
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I am not going to give you the benefit of doubt any more. I will expect you to reply to me when you are replying to me. I will be haunting you in your nightmares if you fail to do so.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
In this case it's a adjective.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
This is how any debate you have deteriorates ricky. You can not prove anything is evidence of your god when we know Zeus could of done it. All the evidence points to him. See how silly that is ricky? You get offended if I say that, but you'd give me a fist pump if I'd said Jesus did it. When the evidence doesn't point to any particular god at all. This is the active part of your faith. It doesn't explain your faith however.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
doubt
1 of 2verb
transitive verb
intransitive verb
doubt
2 of 2noun
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Your point? I told you how I'm using it. Can you debate the content instead of picking over definitions?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Suppose it is not so intuitive and obvious to me, and suppose I am not prone to believing every charlatan that wants to sell me something. What now? Do you have any logical arguments, of the kind that I make every time I write a piece of software that has to be fast, accurate and bug-free? Or is it just endless new age stuff, like "Let go of your self. Embrace the void"?
And your preaching does not hit the mark. It just makes you sound like a mindless cultist. I would like to see actual arguments, not this dribble.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Everyone who possesses sufficient cognitive acuity to know good from evil, right from wrong, knows they're a sinner and they're guilty before our sovereign Creator;
Proof or empirical evidence that your god specifically created? Bible verses are not either proof, or evidence...go
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Conintuing our discussion in the other thread I will now post here as it is still relevant and you are posting here a lot recently. I will start here:
This statement seems to present a deepity. I'm not entirely sure if you are being completely honest with us, or even with yourself, when you say your beliefs about God are based on evidence. If your belief truly rests on evidence, then why is there a need for faith? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, 'I don’t need reason, logic, or evidence to believe in God; faith alone suffices'?
Furthermore, how do you verify the historical accuracy of scriptural events and teachings? What methods can be employed to test these against other historical documents or evidence, beyond merely observing the sun and moon and attributing their existence to God? What substantial evidence exists? How can we test to determine if these scriptures are authentic, without merely relying on intuition, attributing mysteries of nature to divine action, etc.? How can these methods be replicated or verified by others who seek to understand the validity of its claims?
Lastly, considering your belief in an omnipotent Creator is based on observations of nature and further reinforced by Scripture, how do you distinguish between what might simply be subjective personal interpretations of these observations and what is objectively applicable evidence?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
If I may I would now like to genuinly explore how you have come about to know what you claim to know about God and about science here for that matter. Let's start here:
When you mention the universe coming from 'nothing,' how do you define 'nothing' in this context? And how does this concept compare to the explanations provided by contemporary physics or cosmology regarding the origins of the universe?
You’ve mentioned the astronomical improbabilities of the fundamental forces in our universe. How do you determine the probabilities that these constants could arise in a manner that allows for the existence of the universe and life? And have you ever explored alternative scientific explanations that account for these constants without invoking a mind?
How do you reconcile the appearance of design with the scientific understanding of evolution and natural selection? What makes the scientific explanations for the origin of life less plausible to you than the idea of a designer?
In addition to the above I would also like to aske the following:
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Still waiting for you to respond to my quesions please. And if you could refrain from using any deepities for a moment that would be great. Thanks.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I think many atheists think the nothing of the universe is just that - the absence of anything. Lawrence Krauss in his book a Universe from Nothing - means a virtual particle (quantum fluctuation). In other words a bit of energy that for fractions of a second appear as matter. The actual duration can vary, but it is typically extremely brief, in the order of 10^(-21) seconds or even shorter. The problems with this theory are many:
1) A fluctuation that is big enough to create a universe would last for even a shorter duration of time. The problem is that the formation of the fundamental forces of the universe are calculated to take much more time than that to form, meaning that the fluctuation appears and disappears before inflation can kick in. In other words you can't get a universe out of it.
2) You need a perfect 0 net energy in the universe for this to work. No calculation shows this - in fact, you made a big deal recently that it was found to not be a net zero measurement.
3) If this could happen, then we should see examples of it happening in our universe - this is the Boltzmann brain argument
4) As Sean Carroll points out that it is much more likely that we should be observing a much smaller universe than what we do - for it is much more likely to have much smaller fluctuations of energy. We should see lots of stuff coming into being like bicycles and big screen tvs - all of which are much less complex than universes, and we should see them all the time. The fact we don't suggests that this can't happen since its had infinity to happen already.
The universe does appear to be finely tuned. Every scientist agrees on this. Let's look at just a few examples.
1) The low entropy of the universe that was needed to create a universe. Nobel prize winner Roger Penrose calculated that, out of 10^10^123 possible starting points for the universe only one would have as low entropy as ours. He observed there is no known reason for the fundamental forces to have the values that they do. Again, to put the number 10^10^23 into perspective, this number is massively larger than the number of particles in the universe 10^10^80. That smaller number means if just one electron in the entire universe was more or less, then the universe could not have formed, but remember that 10^10^123 is much, much, much larger. That's incredibly fine tuned.
2) The gravitational constant and the weak force constants. If you subscribe to a quantum field theory class of theories for the creation of the universe then the cosmological constant (Λ) needs to be a magnitude of fifty orders as though you expected an inch and measured 1,578,282,282,282,282,282,282,282, 282,282,282,282,282,282,282 miles instead - of the amount of the vacuum energy to account for inflation. As Cosmologist Paul Davies explains:
That's incredibly fined tuned - a small variation (think just a few particles plus or minus) results in no universe - either the gravitational force is too strong and the universe crushes in on itself, or it is too weak and atoms can't form. Again, THERE IS NO KNOWN LAW THAT FORCES THE FUNDAMENTAL FORCES TO HAVE THE VALUES THEY DO.
3) The Strong Nuclear force constant - As Walter Bradley explains -
If neutrons were just a fraction stronger or weaker then we don't get any elements other than hydrogen - so no water, and no fuel for stars. Now I am going to mention this a third time, because I want to be sure you get this point - THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LAWS OF PHYSICS THAT COMPELS ANY OF THE FUNDAMENTAL FORCES TO HAVE THE VALUES THEY DO. In fact there are lots of evidence which suggests that the values should be very different - such as the cosmological constant. I could continue to do this for dozens more aspects of how our universe is finely tuned. Now you can argue well we just got lucky. Winning the lottery once is lucky. Winning it every day for a billion trillion years though is more than luck.
Regarding evolution - I don't need evolution to be true or false for my faith. I think you owe some proof though for such a theory. If non-life can created life then why haven't thousands of scientists who have been focused on the issue and have spent billions of dollars to create life - failed to do , what non-thinking minerals created? They can't even explain a process that will create even a simple single celled life form. Honest scientists will tell you that if evolution occurred there are at least 10 'miracles' that had to have happened for it occur - so in my thinking, if evolution happened, its evidence for God. If you think non-life created life without any aid then create some life. Prove your point.
I think it takes real faith to look at the complexity of the universe, the fact it had a beginning, the complexity of life, and the absence of evidence to replicate any of it, to believe there is no God. If you walked along a beach and found a cell phone. I guess you could reason that the wind and minerals mixed in such a way to build a functioning cell phone, but it is much more reasonable to believe that an intelligence made the phone you found. In the same way, it is much more reasonable, looking at all the evidence to conclude that there is a God.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
There has never existed a greater progenitor of atheism, secular humanism, than Darwin's theory forced into the public classroom as a "biological science" one-year subsequent the removal of Jesus and Prayer and Bible Reading via Engel v. Vitale (1962).
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Again, Still waiting for you to respond to my quesions please I specifically asked you. And if you could refrain from using any deepities for a moment that would be great. Thanks. I don't think you will now but that's fine too. You sounded a little angry in your last post. Anyway, good discussion. Thanks.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
If you understood science at all, you'd know the correct answer to your silly Darwin/psychologist meme is, "why doctor, you and I are transitional fossils waiting to be discovered at some future point."
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
@ZeusAres42 I responded to your questions...that's the best I can do...
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra